D&D 5E How do you handle the issue of initiative versus tactical enemy responses?

[dropbear8mybaby]

If I, as a DM, wanted to kill the PC's, this would be a trifling issue. If I want to hand-hold them, then again, this is of no significant challenge. But if I want to challenge the players and their PC's, then all of a sudden it becomes incredibly difficult to judge appropriate tactical responses of enemies due to the nature of initiative.

What I mean by this is that, if I was being purely tactical, then smart enemies would focus-fire the primary threat from the PC's. Usually healers, spell-casters and then the rest in that order. Even with a moderately challenging encounter with about 7+ enemies (against a standard 4-5 PC party) will make mince-meat out of a single target in short order. I could use individual initiatives for every single monster, but that gets incredibly tiresome and complicated at the table, and only slightly alleviates the issue since although they wouldn't be going on group initiative, they'd still have enough turns in enough rounds to obliterate a single PC.

I've found that because of this I can't really be very smart or tactical with my enemies. Even just one round of focus-fire will usually drop a PC at most levels. And because of this, there's developed a problem of the players perceiving myself and the NPC's as never being very tactical or smart. This in turn has led them to being very brash and uncaring of the threat since they can usually easily beat the encounters.

What middle-ground is there to be had here using a standard initiative paradigm? Either it's too complicated or convoluted to have a more "realistic" initiative order, or I can't use intelligent tactics because it will result in a TPK. How do you handle this issue or is it even an issue you've realised or found to be true at all?

 

[robus]

It seems that you've landed on the core challenge of "The Art of DMing". I.e. Giving the players (and their characters) exactly the right amount of challenge that the game remains fun throughout the campaign. And fun means that the players sometimes have it easy and sometimes they have it hard.

My understanding is that this is something that cannot be prescribed by a set of rules of challenge guidelines though they are at least a starting point. This game has too many moving parts (it's basically chaotic) so you can only DM by feel. And that takes practice and thoughtful contemplation and a willingness to fail.

But the key thing is that you're not there to beat the players, but to challenge them. A mix of monsters allows you some flexibility. In your example have one be a leader and get a separate initiative slot. Or split the monsters in to two groups.

You're thinking about and that's the best thing. You're looking for the sweet spot. And that's going to be different for every group unfortunately.

Was that at all helpful?!

 

[77IM]

I think the initiative thing is a red herring. Like you say, individual initiative can still produce focus-fire and good tactics, and group initiative can still produce chaos and ineffectiveness. So don't worry about initiative; worry only about tactics. But here are some things you could try:

1. Have an enemy leader who shouts tactics. This makes them a target for the PC's focussed fire. It also makes it really obvious that these particular enemies are on the ball. By contrast, dumb-looking enemies should usually just attack the nearest PC.

2. Use defensive tactics. Have enemies take cover and use spells to prevent the PCs from focussing fire. Position enemies to trigger OAs if the party tries to bum-rush the enemy caster or leader. These sorts of defensive tactics can make a fight interesting without making it a PC meatgrinder.

3. Smart enemies use tactics; but they also don't usually fight to the death. Have enemies flee or surrender when things start looking bad for them. This cuts encounters short and makes them a bit easier. You can also have enemies offer the PCs to surrender, and make it clear that they are sincere (maybe give an Insight check to reveal that the enemy actually will go easy on you if you surrender -- players tend to trust the results of their checks much more than things you just tell them).

4. Adjust the effective XP value for a fight based on tactics. Enemies that are being really smart are worth more XP than those being really dumb.

5. Have the enemies come in waves. Maybe wave 2 is reinforcements, or was trying to do some overcomplicated flanking thing. Adjust the size of waves based on how the fight is going. If smart tactics are slaughtering the PCs, wave 2 is small or nonexistent. If the PCs are stomping, then wave 2 is large or has some positional advantage or something.

 

[GameOgre]

Just do your best and aim for challenging over all game play and you will find sometimes the pc's just walk all over the bad guys from luck and from good game play but sometimes things will go south from poor luck or bad game play.

That is a good game play.

 

[MarkB]

If you're concerned as much with adjusting your players' expectations as with improving your own tactics, I'd suggest putting together a couple of low-challenge encounters for them, preferably consisting of a fair number of fairly weak opponents, and then, since you know that these guys aren't hard hitters, just go to town with your tactical savvy, have these guys work together as a well-oiled team.

When the players find themselves struggling to take down the equivalent of goblins simply because their foes are playing it smart, maybe they'll lose at least a little bit of that reckless bravado you've been seeing in them recently.

 

[I'm A Banana]

What middle-ground is there to be had here using a standard initiative paradigm? Either it's too complicated or convoluted to have a more "realistic" initiative order, or I can't use intelligent tactics because it will result in a TPK. How do you handle this issue or is it even an issue you've realised or found to be true at all?

One way to work with this without individual initiative is to use a "back-and-forth" initiative, where you divide the # of monsters by the # of PC's and, after each PC goes, a monster or two goes (or vice-versa if the monsters initiate combat). You don't have to track monster initiative then, but you still break up the monolithic results of focused fire and the like.

 

[Ilbranteloth]

If the monsters are intelligent and have the opportunity to plan their attack, then their tactics are very deadly. Even if they don't have an opportunity to plan, I have general tactics that each type of monster is most likely to use.

I find that a handful of standard humanoids - goblinkin, orcs, etc., are a challenge for even mid-level characters if played well. These creatures are feared by the general populace as ruthless warriors, and I expect them to act that way. But my players know this, and they plan their tactics accordingly.

Yes, it can get deadly very quickly, but against a party of adventurers, those monsters are (usually) fighting for their lives. It should feel like it.

I almost had a TPK with 8 hobgoblins at night when they attacked the party's camp from a distance. Even though they were at long range to start, they could see the characters due to their fire, were behind cover, and the party couldn't see the hobgoblins at all. Trying to charge them was soon discovered to be a bad idea, so they had to find a different tactic. It was very, very tough.

They learned really quickly that they need to work together and have some good tactics. Some of which include diving for cover and running away.

 

[Croesus]

First, use tactics appropriate to the creatures. Animals will use individual or pack tactics. Semi-intelligent creatures may become distracted and attack everyone around them (splitting their attacks) or focus on whoever last injured them. Intelligent creatures may focus-fire or use battlefield control effects to split the party, or other such tactics. Using varying strategies based on the opposition will add verisimilitude and keep the players on their toes.

As for your concern about dropping PCs...what's the issue? In my game, almost every tough fight results in at least one PC going down at some point. The players have adapted their tactics, for example by the Life cleric saving his Channel Divinity ability to use Preserve Life (a really useful ability in combat). Everyone has at least one healing potion, so others can use it on a downed character. Some of the most tense encounters are when someone goes down, the enemy are trying to drag him away and the party races to get him back.

Of course, dropping some characters is okay. If the battles are regularly dropping all or nearly all the PCs, then either the players need to act smarter (scouting, ambushes, better tactics) or you're throwing too much at them. But dropping the occasional character because the villains are, you know, villains...go for it.

One last thought: players may react badly if this comes out of the blue. If you change your style to use better tactics, you might give them a heads up. Something along the lines of "As GM, I'll never try to kill your characters. But your opponents - the NPCs and monsters - will."

 

[Uller]

I try to have the monsters behave in ways that make sense. Predatory creatures behave like predators. They aren't there to get a TPK...they are there to get food. So for instance, a group of griffons attacked the party while camping. While two griffons dove at the party to keep them busy, two others scattered their horses then they chased down the easiest one, killed it and carried it away before the party could save it.

While fighting giant spiders, the spiders would web characters from a distance then grapple them and carry them off into the webs (in OotA I did this). Dark Mantles would knock parties from the precipice they were on and let them fall to their deaths.

Zombies are mindless. They attack the closest thing relentlessly.

Soldiers will fight tactically but not from a meta PoV. I'm not going to have them cheesily do an attack conga line on the PCs to take one down. But they might provoke an OA and then take advantage of it to get at juicier PCs. I assume most monsters have not fought a coordinated group like an adventuring party. They don't know how to spot healers. Casters might be targeted if they look soft. But some monsters might fear them.

Monsters that have fought adventurers or similar battles before would know how to prioritize targets. From highest to lowest:

1) Enemies that I am vulnerable to that are vulnerable to me.
2) Enemies that an ally is vulnerable to that is vulnerable to me.
3) Enemies that I am vulnerable to that I am somewhat effective against
4) Enemies that an ally is vulnerable that I am somewhat effective against.
5) Enemies that are somewhat effective against me that are vulnerable to me...
and so on...

This is standard military tactical target prioritization.

First priority is taking down targets you can kill quickly that can kill you quickly.

I was a gunner on a tank (before I moved to Infantry). Let's say I have three targets to choose from:

1) A lightly armored vehicle at long range. It has anti-tank missiles and aiming at me. (easy to kill, can easily kill me)
2) A tank at long range that is aiming at me (and facing me). (hard to kill, unlikely to kill me)
3) a tank at close range that is aiming at an ally. (easy to kill, can easily kill an ally)

Priorities would be 1, 3, 2.

Healers make for a twist. Kill them after any immediate threats to self are killed or at least mitigated.

 

[Sword of Spirit]

If your characters are over level 1 or 2, intelligent foes using focus fire to take out casters and such is unlikely to actually kill characters, due to 5e's forgiving death system.

So go for it. For the first couple of fights the casters are going to go down. Then the players and their characters will have to figure out how to adapt to such tactics, and that will be the fun challenge.